During the summer of 2009, conservative activists turned up the heat on Democratic politicians to protest the innovation-destroying, liberty-usurping Obamacare mandate. In the summer of 2012, its squishy Republican politicians who deserve the grassroots flames.

In case you hadnt heard, even if the Supreme Court overturns the progressives federal health care juggernaut, prominent GOP leaders vow to preserve its most popular provisions. These big-government Republicans show appalling indifference to the dire market disruptions and culture of dependency that Obamacare schemes have wrought.

GOP Sen. Roy Blunt of Missouri, vice chair of the Senate GOP Conference, told a St. Louis radio station two weeks ago that he supports keeping at least three Obamacare regulatory pillars: federally imposed coverage of children up to age 26 on their parents health insurance policies (the infamous, unfunded slacker mandate), federally mandated coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions (guaranteed issue, which turns the very concept of insurance on its head and leads to an adverse-selection death spiral) and closure of the coverage gap in the massive Bush-backed Medicare drug entitlement (the donut hole fix that will obliterate the programs cost-controls).

At some point before the election Romney is going to have be forced to offer his version of 'health care reform'. If conservatives allow him to evade and obfuscate, he'll probably try to 'save' some portions of ObamaCare and just re-name them or tinker around the edges and say he 'fixed' Obamacare, which cannot be 'fixed'.

We're likely stuck with Romney as the GOP presidential nominee but that doesn't mean we have to lie down and let him do as he pleases, if elected. This means a Republican-majority congress is vital and it has to have an abundance of conservatives, like Senator Jim Demint, who are willing to battle Romney - and thwart him - if, as president, he succumbs to his liberal urges.

Liberalism and conservatism mean nothing to them, it's the money in their back pockets that counts.Two terms for congressman, two *4 year* year terms for senators.The hell with career politicians making themselves rich at the nation's expense.

Now, I am NOT saying that Romney is a Communist, But he is a Government loving Socialist that will be scratching his head wondering "how did this happen"? after he pulls the GOP permanently to the left, that the party of treason has no opposition.

13
posted on 06/14/2012 3:04:35 PM PDT
by KC_Lion
(I am finished with listening to empty promises of the great GOP saving me in 4 more years.)

There is a chance that since Romney isn’t black he won’t be able to flash that race card of immunity and get away with bloody murder of America. Republican Congressman might find themselves once again able to hold the POTUS accountable because he will no longer be black. Fear of being labeled ‘racist’ will no longer be a part of the political landscape. Amen.

We have to get as big of a majoirty in both houses as possible in 2012, and push as many seats to principled conservatives as possible. After the election, we need to make it abundantly clear that the clock is running, and that we will stay home in 2014, and they will all go home in Dec 2014 if they do not stand strong and make the changes needed. This means, purely market driven reforms on health care, enacting the Ryan plan to reform Medicare and Medicaid and reforming taxes, cleaning up the code and lowering rates. Anything less than these three things means an abbreviated term for anyone up in 2014.

We’ve got a huge job on our hands to revamp the GOP at the state and national levels. That has to be done, and done as harshly as necessary to rid the party of cave-in squishy sell-outs. It’s not going to be exactly easy - but, it’s the only common-sense option.

VERY wise. NEVER EVER give a dime to the RNC. Keep all your campaign dollars local - never send it out of your own district. Keep that humming with the best you can find. If every Republican did that we would be in great shape nationally.

The federal government has neither a constitutional duty nor the authority to devise a program of medical care insurance for the citizenry. It does,however, have the authority needed to regulate interstate commerce, and, as regards medical insurance contracts, to remove barriers to interstate commerce while also prohibiting excessive costs of settling medical malpractice lawsuits and prohibiting nuisance lawsuits.

We did toss two RINOs off the national committee a few weeks back in Michigan. Saul Anuzis is one man I was happy to see gone. When they behave like democrats its time to treat them like democrats. (Anuzis has also been pushing the national popular vote)

Cox was one of two "no" votes on the committee which met via telephone, along with attorney Eric Doster The "yes" votes included GOP National Committeeman Saul Anuzis, a Romney supporter, and MRP Chair Bobby Schostak.

That would put the delegate split at 16 for Romney and 14 for Rick Santorum, after each candidate won 14 delegates apiece in those divided by Michigan's 14 congressional districts.

As MIRS first reported on Wednesday, the MRP was delaying a final decision on the delegate split until after consulting with attorneys.

Cox said that according to the MRP rules, Santorum and Romney should each get one of Michigan's two at-large delegates based on their take of the popular vote.

"I supported Mitt, but the vote was clearly wrong," Cox said of the Credentials Committee. "It's kind of like Third World voting. We published rules and then we voted to change the rules."

To some degree I like the idea of term-limits. But, the best hedge against traitorous reps is not term-limits, it is tuned-in dedicated voters.

The big problem we face is apathy among voters. But bigger than that is the fact that when we find a really good and solid conservative that the machine in DC can't pull away from conservatism, we want to keep them in office as long as they will serve.

In addition to that - a newly elected rep does NOT learn the ropes for almost two years. Some coming from state legislative experience 'get it' in far less time. Others are green as a gourd for up to two years, and have to be led around by their staff - often voting non-conservatively at the advice of others - not even knowing that they are voting on the wrong side of many issues.

"When they behave like democrats its time to treat them like democrats."

Amen - and pass the ammunition!

State and local politics is where we all need to concentrate our own efforts - that of keeping RINO's at bay, denying them any position of power whatsoever.

Conservatives fighting RINO's in state party structure is 'where-it's-at' - and the sooner FReepers jump into that fray and fight like hell, the sooner we'll purge the party of squishy good-for-nothings!

I spent all of my efforts at that job, and helped to toss RINO'S out of the power in CA (back when.) It was a huge battle, it cost a lot of money, but in the end we denied party seats to a host of RINO candidates - not ONE gained a seat.

Yes, I know what you mean, term limits can be a double edge sword.The career Rino politician is someone who stabs us in the back at critical times, but runs *right* at election time (Sheeple are sheeple and will forever have short memories). I have to go with term limits because of that.

Tea Partiers, GOP conservatives, and libertarians came together and got it done in Michigan. It enraged the old guard but it happened under rules. Keep that in mind when they squeal about Ron Paul voters “Causing trouble”.

Wait a minute! If the guppies (Tea and RINO) couldn't "eliminate" the law against safe light bulbs, what makes anyone foolish enough to believe that they would actually eliminate deathcare?

We've been down this road several times since the class of 94 turned into the dangerous liberty-sucking crap-heads they ended up as.

The only way deathcare gets eliminated (even if the black robes declare it bogus) will be with the actual use of pitchforks and tar & feathers. Hah! Even on a good day, there aren't enough un-pussified males under the age of 50 left in the U.S. with the gonads to gave any chance of success for that.

The only possible impediment the tyrants who now rule us might have to an unblemished 1000 years is 9992Apophis.

34
posted on 06/14/2012 10:22:32 PM PDT
by SuperLuminal
(Where is another agitator for republicanism like Sam Adams when we need him?)

You are really funny, please explian why the GOP ledership caves, get’s weak in the knee’s, lack’s a spint then gives the left exactly what they want? Why did McConnel give the democrats everything they asked for in the lame duck session?

Why have they refused to attach an amendment to all bills repealing the HC law?

All politicians innately desire power, that is why they are as individuals are generally inclined to run for office in the first place.

It is this is that same desire for power which inclines most politician toward bigger more powerful government.

We cannot be so blinded as to believe that mealy because a politician holds a “republican” or “conservative” title that they will all be above the temptation of power. This is no title, or ideology so strong as to immune men to this temptation.

As you have seen yourselves not even elections can moderate the desire for power. This is perhaps why Thomas Jefferson pointed out that it is the natural order of things for governments to grow and as a converse consequence liberty to recede. I am sadly resigned to the fact that it is likely a we will have to uses this fallacy of human nature against itself if we are to have any hope of reclaiming our rights.

The only alliterative might be a compete collapse & revolution.

But how do uses the desire for power to restore power/rights to the people?
Well we have two weapons here:
1: People desire control over themselves and their lives that is a political weapon.

2: Politican who all desire and fight for power with supposedly people being the deciding factor of their position can in theory have the outcomes of their battles “influenced” by the same people or a subset there of.

But why do we care if we are ruled by this tyrant or that tyrant? This is certantly a most valid question and point. The truth is all things being equal we don’t care. But all things are not equal. the local tyrant can’t prevent us from checking their power with our feet, the Federal tyrant can.

It is that one weapon, the only truly individual vote that exist in nature as in our political system(the power to leave/secede) that can and will liberate us.

For how can a tyrant rule without the consent of the governed if the governed can simply leave his domain of rule at will?

He can’t and simply trying tends to weaken not only him but the local mob of supporters that remain.(see California)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.